I can discern different tastes. I’m just so indifferent to most tastes to the point of not caring, hence most things tasting pretty much the same.
It tastes weird!
Ketchup sucks.
Yeah but you don’t like food, you claim it all tastes the same.
Or am I misremembering that?
It more or less does, but ketchup is too strong.
Ketchup sucks.
I really hated the concept of taking a book that at most should have been a two-hour movie and turning it into three two-and-a-half hour behemoths.
Probably?
But it’s not on brand. As a company they need to pretend all of this stuff is one clean Star Wars product from the spin-offs to the toys they sell. No weird dance-offs at their theme parks, no special features on DVDs that suggest any behind the scenes drama. And so it’s keeping with that line of thinking if they say yes, George Lucas created all of this and it was always this way. I’d love to think otherwise but I can’t imagine any other outcome. The theatrical release of the OOT is probably treated with contempt like the old EU now.
I agree with all of this except for the notion that anything is treated with contempt. I don’t think they really care about anything.
I didn’t watch the next two movies because I found the first one really dull and boring and another five and a half hours was too much for me.
That could be interesting.
It’s all subjective. I’m assuming your definition of gratuitous is far more conservative than mine. If you think that what is on television is too gratuitous then it definitely is.
Original shows from streaming services often seem to be vulgar or lewd just because they can, with little regard for whether it’s warranted.
You’re giving me no examples of this. Possessed is the only one who gave me an example, and in that case I actually agree with him. I might even agree with you on something specific. Try me, but I won’t indulge in this morality policing nonsense that, in the case of Handman, literally associates TV shows with underage pornography.
It’s all subjective. I’m assuming your definition of gratuitous is far more conservative than mine. If you think that what is on television is too gratuitous then it definitely is.
I’m in favor of your transition and I do validate it. I was pointing out to him why surgery isn’t what determines someone’s gender.
I don’t think it’s shocking for me to say that I am a total dumbass when it comes to this kind of thing, but since I have the opportunity, I’ll ask. Why is requiring surgery to declare yourself a male or female a bad thing? From my perspective, it seems like the logical thing to do, if a man is defined as being, you know, biologically a man, and a woman the same. I don’t mean to be provocative, I’m just genuinely curious.
Nothing can make a biological man a biological woman or vice versa, and for that reason (as well as for cost and other restrictions), a lot of transgenders aren’t interested in or able to go through such invasive and expensive surgeries. That’s why it’s about identifying as one gender or the other, not whether or not someone wants or can afford those surgeries.
Gratuitousness regarding profanity, sexual promiscuity, or nudity doesn’t add anything to the story.
That is a ridiculous generalization. Sometimes it fits the tone or characters perfectly.
We are talking national security here.
*yawn*
Basically don’t act like a weirdo in the airport (or like a normal person) because air marshals may be following you and documenting everything you do in hopes of discovering you’re up to no good.
That does seem concerning.
Of course the other side of it is that the stakes are high. We don’t want bad people to be able to hijack planes and ram them into who knows what and kill who knows how many people.
That’s never going to happen again because hijacked planes won’t be allowed to fly into cities anymore before getting shot down. Keeping dangerous people out of the cockpit is what really matters in airplanes these days. Airport security is a joke and it’s draconian measures aren’t keeping any of us safe.
Lol.
I don’t think we’re supposed to laugh at that.
Awaiting further guidance…
Supposed to has nothing to do with it. It’s an amusing story to me and it strikes me as a tad bit funny. In the past, my willingness to giggle at insane news stories has been cited as examples of how I’m pure evil, but I don’t care. Some guy changing his gender for insurance reasons is so crazy that it’s funny.
Rightwingers have really high standards for conservatism. McConnell is extremely rightwing on most issues.
Lol.
Maybe I am wrong and acted rashly, but it seemed like you guys were making fun of me for being Christian and I didn’t like it and I got angry last night.
No one here is or ever has made fun of you for a Christian, so next time it seems that way to you, just remember that that isn’t how it actually is.
Chance of OOT re-release is 0%
It isn’t 0%. The chances probably aren’t good. I don’t even think it’s on their radar, but I bet it’s primarily because they don’t care. If they do it, it’ll probably be done as part of a project to restore all old Star Wars footage, so it’d make logical business sense to restore it as they’re revisiting the deteriorating film.
Disgusting.
I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?
So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?
For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?
I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.
Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?
By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?
I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.
Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.
I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…
When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?
Perhaps. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing something or even appreciating something that has no intrinsic value, so long as you acknowledge that it’s devoid of any intrinsic value.
For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…
I’m just going to be honest and admit that I don’t understand this paragraph.
For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?
Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?
For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?
A lot of people do pick and choose which morals they care about. There are plenty of adulterers that don’t kill anyone, and there are plenty of murderers that never hurt children, and there are plenty of thieves that are otherwise kindhearted. What ultimately keeps people from doing the exact opposite of everything that society deems moral is a combination of empathy and the selfish realization that you won’t be accepted in society (and you might even face serious physical consequences including death) if you don’t play by the rules. I don’t want to commit crimes against other people because I can see how it would hurt them and I wouldn’t want that happening to me or anyone that I care about. The nonviolent crimes that I do want to commit, I abstain from because I understand that it wouldn’t be worth going to jail, or going to court, or being ostracized, or having to do community service. There are totally rational explanations for this kind of behavior.
Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The human brain is a very powerful organ and for that reason emotions are already extremely powerful.
Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?
Sure. Why not? I avoid saying things in some situations, not because I care about offending the people I’m around, but because I know that I’ll be given shit for it if I do say it.
Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?
I’m a very angry person and I’m not capable of just opting out of being pissed off at something. It’s a gut reaction that I largely can’t control and was probably a result of some combination of genetics and upbringing. The best I could do is pretend not to be angry, but that’s not honest at all.
I guess I agree with him too in that I don’t want underage children to be recorded in the act of sexual activity and then broadcast to the world via network television, but that’s not happening. That’s obviously not happening. That would be hideously illegal. This entire issue isn’t compatible with reality.
Is it compatible with windows 7?
I don’t know, is it?
I guess I agree with him too in that I don’t want underage children to be recorded in the act of sexual activity and then broadcast to the world via network television, but that’s not happening. That’s obviously not happening. That would be hideously illegal. This entire issue isn’t compatible with reality.
I don’t know, watching porn when I want a story isn’t really for me, especially underage porn.
I’m not even sure what planet this post is coming from. You’ve described something that is already punishable by years and years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry. There is no underage porn on television. You’re complaining about a problem that doesn’t even exist.
I don’t know why I bother.
Yeh It sucks when people make counter arguments doesn’t it
I wouldn’t call any of that a counter argument. That would require an argument to have actually been made.
You have no argument here. All you’re saying is that vague, horrible things have been normalized (whatever that even means) and it’s horrible and it’s everywhere, but you haven’t cited any examples or given us any evidence that what you’re talking about is even bad. I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
also, most teens are like that, so why would they change from displaying reality to a twisted utopia?
This, but also not many people would call a place absent of sex and alcohol a “utopia.”
I’m not even asking for that. I’m just asking for it to be less explicit and not glorified. There’s no reason to show an explicit sex scene between teenagers.
What if the story calls for such a scene? Who are you to ask for all art to be less explicit and not “glorify” something? All art has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Are there smutty, exploitative shows and movies? Yes, absolutely. Are all shows depicting the sexual exploits of young characters smutty and exploitative? No, not at all.